Free Subscription! 
iTunes 
Our podcast will keep you up to date...
The government shouldn't be involved in X, but since it is.....
The argument "The government shouldn't be involved in X, but since it is..." comes up a lot. What is the proper libertarian response to such questions. Ideally, we want to get the State out of as many things as possible but how do we approach issues where in the meantime, government isn't going to get out. For example, the marriage issue. A case could be made both ways: the gov't shouldn't extend marriage or the gov't should treat people equally. Or immigration. The government owns property. Should immigrants have unimpeded access to the property in order to get into the U.S. ? It seems like a potential can of worms.
Thoughts?
__________________
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it
Learned Hand
In the past men created witches: now they create mental patients.
Thomas Szasz
Relinquish liberty for the purposes of defense in an emergency?
Why? It would seem that in an emergency, of all times, one needs
his greatest strength. So if liberty is strength and slavery is weakness,
liberty is a necessity rather than a luxury, and we can ill afford
to be without it—least of all during an emergency.
F.A. Harper
That's a good question. I'm at a point where I am at a loss to answer many of these questions other than to point out the absurdity of the government involvement and suggest that maybe people subvert it as much as possible. For instance, instead of begging for permission for gay marriage set the terms of your own marriage and screw the state certificate. Yeah there are financial and legal disadvantages, but at some point the system needs to be ignored.
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe."
Frank Zappa